The court ruled that an interim order for maintenance remains in effect despite pending proceedings for nullity of marriage to ensure basic support.

JUDGMENT

This original petition is filed with following prayers :

I. “Call for the records in Crl.M.P. No. 1012/2019 in M.C. No.343/2019 pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam and set aside Exhibit-P-9 interim order dated

02.08.2023.

II. Call for the records in O.P No. 759/2022 pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam (Formerly O.P No. 280/2019 of the Family Court, Kalpetta) and kindly declare that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent solemnized on 24.01.2018 at “Sivagiri Madam, Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram District” as null and void, in the interests of both the parties.

III. Declare that the procedure adopted by the Family Court, Ernakulam ordering the petitioner to pay interim maintenance to the respondent without conducting the counselling of the parties in Crl.M.P. No. 1012/ 2019 in M.C.

No.343/2019 as mandated under section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 , is irregular and illegal.

IV. Issue a direction to the Family Court, Ernakulam to dispose the Crl. M.P. No. 1012/2019 in M.C No. 343/2019 afresh, only after the disposal of O.P. No. 759/2022 (Formerly O.P. No. 280/2019 of Family Court, Kalpetta).

V. Issue a direction to the Family Court, Ernakulam to dispose the O.P. No. 759/2022 (Formerly O.P. No. 280/2019 of Family Court, Kalpetta) with in a time frame, before considering the Crl. M.P. No. 1012/2019 in M.C No. 343/2019 and the M.C. No. 343/2019 itself filed by the respondent.

VI. Any other order this Hon’ble court deems fit in the nature and circumstances of the case.

VII. To dispense with the production of the translation of the vernacular documents produced in the writ petition.” [sic] 2. The petitioner mainly challenging Ext.P9 order by which the petitioner is directed to pay interim maintenance to the respondents at the rate of Rs.5,000/-. According to the petitioner, he filed OP No. 759/2022 before the Family Court, Ernakulam to declare the marriage as null and void. Till a decision is taken in that original petition, the direction to pay interim maintenance is to be kept in abeyance is the submission. I cannot agree with the same.

This Court in Manoj v. M.Sindhu [2006 KHC 1460] considered this point in detail. The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder :

4. “Pendency of proceedings for nullity of marriage, when no interim directions have been passed in such proceedings, cannot certainly be a ground to claim absolution from liability to pay maintenance under S.125 CrPC. A wife cannot be permitted to starve until the proceedings for declaration of nullity comes to its final conclusion. Needless to say, if the petitioner succeeds in the proceedings for nullity of the admittedly solemnised marriage, he will certainly be entitled to get the order modified (vacated) by invoking the provisions of S.127 CrPC. That cannot certainly be a ground for absolution from liability under S.125 CrPC. “

3. Therefore, I am not in a position to interfere with Ext.P9 simply because an original petition is pending before the Family Court to declare the marriage as null and void. But, I make it clear that if there is any change of circumstances, the petitioner can approach the Family Court itself to vary Ext.P9 order. When this case came up for consideration, this Court directed the Registry to get a report from the Family court, Ernakulam about the time required to dispose OP No. 759/2022. The Family Court submitted a report, in which it is stated that OP No.759/2022 can be disposed of within six months. In the light of the same, the Family Court, Ernakulam is directed to dispose OP No. 759/2022 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

With the above observation, this original petition is disposed of.